Interview with Wayne Jackson

Wayne Jackson I want to start with the Carter Report. What is your vision for the game and what are the challenges?

Well the Carter Report was the result of eight months of work by the AFL and by Commissioner Colin Carter and a group within the AFL but particularly a wide ranging broad section of people around the whole of the country, from most states of this country and from various positions within Football or industry and the end result of that is that they've come up with ten strong recommendations for the football community to consider and they largely revolve around the development of grassroots football. That Report was distributed to our Clubs about seven weeks ago. It's in the hands of all of our state leagues and pleasingly we've had a quite strong response thus far to the report itself. It's been universally acclaimed as a very excellent report and now the Commission is committed to, late in April working through the responses of the various stakeholders.

I think it has received a lot of good feedback from what I can gather. There is still an issue over how much money goes north isn’t there?

Well that's not an issue so much in the Report but the Report does say that it if all ten recommendations are accepted there be an increased investment beyond that which we've already budgeted for of in the order of $35 to $40 million dollars over the next four to five years. The Report does say to confirm your statement that we need to continue to invest substantially in New South Wales and Queensland but it's also at pains to stress that we must protect our heartlands of Victoria and South Australia, Western Australia as well so I think certainly the feedback we're getting from clubs is that it's a very balanced report and the recommendations should be very seriously considered.

I want to talk about one of the equalisation strategies and that is that the draft - that was quite a big back flip the AFL did on the draft concessions for New South Wales and Queensland last year, why did that happen?

I don't know the back flip you're referring to. If you're talking about the fact that the AFL Commission is, has deferred one of the recommendations for implementation in 2002 that is correct. I'm not sure what the back flip is.

So what you're saying to me is that the AFL will be pushing for draft concessions for New South Wales and Queensland for 2002?

Do you mean for the Swans and for the Brisbane Lions?

Yes.

No we're not pushing for draft concessions. We're... there is some debate it is true about whether the draft should be used to support the development aspirations of the AFL and the Commission formed the view that it is appropriate that lads within those strong Rugby League, Rugby Union footholds should have a pathway through to the elite level of the AFL. That's what drove the recommendations last year and it did cause some consternation with a number of our clubs. That is true too. It wasn't designed to be giving what some people call "free kicks" to the Sydney Swans or the Brisbane Lions.

Eddie McGuire and John Elliot certainly think that that was what was happening, now Graham Downing this year says he will once again push for that the zoning - the current report leaves room for zoning as you say so what is going to happen here? Presumably you're going to get quite a lot of pressure from people like John Elliot and Eddie McGuire not to do this.

Oh look we'll get pressure from some clubs not to do it and we'll get pressure from others to do it and that's why the AFL does have an independent Commission that tries to form a view about what is appropriate and in this particular circumstance it will decide what is best for the development of the Australian game, it is not about contrary to whatever may be promoted to you, it's not about providing extra draft picks for particular clubs. I'm not sure that this subject's actually finished at this point but I've given you the progress report.

So there's not actually decision made yet on zoning issues?

Well there's still some discussion going on but the current position is that the decisions made last year to promote through that particular mechanism football in New South Wales and Queensland would be implemented during the course of 2002.

How is a sixteen club game sustainable?

Well we've been able to do it for a long period of time now and the AFL Commission has taken the strong view that at least for the foreseeable future that a sixteen team competition including ten teams in Melbourne is the most appropriate one for the AFL and can work...

How far can you see in the future then?

Well that's a very very good question and I guess in that, in terms of that people would say three, five, ten years. I mean no one's silly enough to commit to what may or may not be the case in thirty or forty years but with the policies and the practices and the strategies that are in place by the AFL Commission and supported by our clubs we think we are creating the environment in which all sixteen clubs can survive.

The bottom line is that we do have costs rising faster than revenues - clubs are struggling or making losses and it's not just one club, the Kangaroos, the Bulldogs, Freemantle, Melbourne, Geelong, St Kilda...

Well that that's true if you look at financial year 2001 it's not true if you look at the last ten years or so. It's important to remember that in the early 80s when the revenue of football clubs was in the order of a couple of million dollars we had two or three ailing football clubs. It's true that in the 90s when the revenue of footy clubs is five, six, seven million dollars we had two or three ailing football clubs. In the early part of this century we have two or three ailing football clubs notwithstanding that the revenues of the football clubs are now ten to twenty million dollars per club so it's not a new, something new that's come into the game so what's important is not the actual amount of money that is available to football clubs, it's how it is distributed and it is the gap between the haves and the have nots that is the impact and that's the concern.

When we had ailing football clubs in the 80s and 90s Fitzroy went to Brisbane and South Melbourne went to Sydney. Is that what's going to happen to ailing clubs in the future?

Well not with the current strategies in place as recently as this month of March 2002 and endorsing a decision that was made in the latter part of 2001 all sixteen clubs have totally supported the financial strategies of the AFL Commission and under those strategies the Commission supported by the Clubs will provide money in certain circumstances to help the financially struggling clubs. That's been agreed. We're in the process of giving consideration of that and provided that strategy is in place and it's planned to be by the Commission well that should give the clubs the opportunity to survive in the long term but at the end of the day Football clubs and their future are determined by their boards, their management, their on field performance, the support from their members… their future can't be impacted upon in any other way.

You say there's been total support across the board for financial assistance, there was that widely reported lunch in October last year where it seemed clear that at least the five big clubs told Ron Adams in no uncertain terms that they weren't happy with financial assistance coming from the clubs?

Well I can only deal with the facts and the facts are that on November the 26th 2001 all sixteen clubs unanimously supported the financial strategies of the competition which did provide for funding to go to some of the financially strapping clubs under certain strong conditions and those same strategies were unanimously endorsed on March the 20th 2002.

What happened after that lunch was that it was agreed that it wouldn't come out of club revenue, to come out of consolidated revenue's that money.

Well see that's a nonsense because the AFL is a co-operative and the monies go ultimately to the clubs in the forms of distribution or they go into the development of the game so the money there is nobody's other than ultimately the clubs or the games so whatever pots you choose to take it out of, it comes out of the same big pot.

Four Corners has been told that seven of the sixteen clubs have asked for redirection of their ...distributions. Will you confirm that?

Yes I will. That's something we've volunteered. It's very public all our clubs know that, we've often made that available to the press. That's not news.

Does that worry you though?

No well do you understand what a redirection order is? A redirection order is simply providing some short-term cash to help over short-term problems within clubs and the most common of those is where a club is having difficulty meeting some player payments. A sponsor may pay late and they ask the AFL to make their next dividend payable to the bank so yes we do that. It's been there for a long long time. The numbers aren't any greater today than they have been historically.

Are the Kangaroos technically insolvent?

Ah I think that's a question you should ask the President of the Kangaroos. I'm sure you will.

But is that a concern that you have?

No it's not in terms of what I've just spent some time in outlying on the financial strategies of the League. Under what's been unanimously supported by all sixteen clubs, the Kangaroos and any other club can get access to five million dollars plus $3.5 million dollars of redirection orders in the next several years subject to the clubs fulfilling certain conditions in terms of the way the club's actually managed and the disciplines within the club. Now that sort of money… will be more than enough to keep into this competition, and keep vibrant well-managed financially disciplined football clubs.

You're offering redirection of redistributions, you're offering $2 million to each club from Waverly now for the first time you're talking about financial assistance on top of that.

Well again it's not for the first time. That's the financial management strategy that was endorsed unanimously in 2001 by all sixteen clubs. That offer was made then. It's an offer of $1 million dollars per club for a maximum of three years so any one club can get up to $3 million dollars and that's been well known now for the past four or five months...

But it is the first time, you know in November it's the first time that this this has happened.

Oh well it's not the first time that the clubs have received financial assistance. It's the first time that that particular form of financial assistance is there yeah.

Why is there this much talked about Mexican standoff between the AFL and Allen Aylett at the moment? I mean my understanding is that Allen Aylett was desperate for assistance.

Well I don't... there's not a Mexican standoff from the AFL's viewpoint and I don't want to talk about Allen Aylett or the Kangaroos. I want to talk about the principles and the principles are that we will deal with all clubs even-handedly but there is no unconditional financial donations from 14 or 15 clubs to one other club so there are conditions in place, which if met by the Kangaroos or any other club will enable the club to get the financial assistance that will enable it to thrive.

But you say you wont talk about Allen Aylett, I mean is that because Allen Aylett is not really talking to you at the moment?

Well I... please be expansive cause I don't know what you're talking about.

Well there seems to be quite a lot of tension between the Kangaroos at the moment, they've been through a very difficult patch obviously but there seems to be quite a different process of development between the Kangaroos and say the Western Bulldogs...

Well I can only confirm and confirm very strongly that the processes that apply to the Kangaroos apply equally to all other clubs and there is no discrimination against any one club. We deal with them all even-handedly. If a club is struggling to get the financial support from the AFL that it thinks is appropriate it only has to meet the financial conditions and the guidelines, which all sixteen clubs have agreed upon.

That's the crux isn't it because the Kangaroos have made a loss this year of $934,000? The capital raising to get them out of trouble was only $600,000, they had a $1.1 million loss last year, where's the evidence of a turnaround?

Well I, it's not my responsibly to turn around the fortunes of the Kangaroos. That is the responsibility of the board of the Kangaroos, the management and the stakeholders of the Kangaroos. Our responsibly at the AFL is to create the environment in which the Kangaroos are able to survive and thrive. We're doing that. The Kangaroos work in exactly the same environment as the Essendon Football Club, the Collingwood Football Club, the West coast Eagles so they have exactly the same opportunity and additionally now they have access up to $8.5 million over a period of years subject only to them meeting guidelines and principles which they have actually supported as have other clubs.

What are those guidelines for investment? What has that money got to be used for?

Well to get the support, to get the guarantee from the sale of Waverley for example you have two options. One you can put it into capital investment as some clubs will do, the Richmond Footy Club I'm sure will want to develop the Punt Road ground, the Collingwood Club may want to develop Olympic Park. If a club doesn't have a capital project and it is seriously being financially threatened they can nevertheless get access to the $2 million guarantee for Waverley which means the AFL will repay that debt and or they can get access to some share of the $3 million, $1 million a year for three years. The sort of things it must do, it must have a financial plan that is viable. It must have operating cash flow budgets on a month-by-month basis. It must have a business plan that has a vision for the club for the next number of years, it must have people in places that are capable of executing those plans so it's the normal sort of business operation that you would experience and in which bankers would want if they're going to lend money to clubs.

Would you use financial assistance to prop up a club like the Kangaroos who at the moment are not taking about money for capital investment or to pay off debts, it's in a situation where it's hand to mouth.

Well the answer's absolutely yes and that's what we've just spent four or five months explaining to the Kangaroos and to other clubs. The Kangaroos have access to $5 million plus $3.5 million of redirected dividends to use for purposes to keep the club alive, if that to use your words, subject only to the same terms and conditions that they and all other fifteen clubs have agreed so the answer to that is absolutely yes.

I just want to be really specific here because those terms and conditions certainly as far as the $2 million is concerned and I'm wondering whether as as well the financial assistance, is specifically for capital growth or paying off debts.

No Ticky, with respect you are absolutely wrong on that…

Right.

...and if that's what you're being told you're being told only very part of the story. The $2 million guarantee can be used immediately if the people wish to use it for capital purpose and that may include for example the Freemantle Football Club paying off debt that's associated with the building of their new premises but additionally to that if the club is sufficiently stressed in the financial sense that $2 million dollars can be used to be to repay debt but again I repeat it has to be able to demonstrate that it's got all the normal business principles in place and it is viable on a long term basis.

What happens Wayne, what happens when money is paid out by the AFL to those clubs? They need that business plan do they still have total independent control over their decision making process?

Well once they present their business plan and they've got their budgets in place they are expected to operate according to that budget and according to that business plan. That's the basis on which the money's been provided so I would expect them to do it. I'm sure they will so subject to them operating within the plans and the budgets that they have advanced and which have been approved by the Commission under the terms and conditions agreed by all sixteen clubs, yes they can be as independent as they like.

So the AFL would not have greater power over major business decisions of that club if the AFL was propping up that club on an ongoing basis?

No the AFL will specifically have no direct toil responsibilities and to do so would have all sorts of legal implications.

I'm talking about pressure to move a club from Melbourne to Brisbane or Sydney.

No absolutely not but we would expect clubs to get their players to commit to honouring the sort of development programs in place like Oz Kick etc but no there's no conditions like relocation is that's the question.

Or pressure if...

...other than the pressure which we've all agreed to be there.

We've heard about corporate doctors that might be brought in to look after clubs which are struggling financially and who need AFL funding. Who are these corporate doctors?

Um we've never used, Ticky the word "corporate doctors", is that your terminology?

No it's not actually.

Well the AFL's never used the word "corporate doctors". We're not bringing corporate doctors we're asking clubs to have financial plans, to have strategic plans in place. We will appoint an independent financial adviser. That person's already working with one of our clubs to help them through this process and we'll make that person available to all clubs. That person will form a view as to whether the plans are viable just as you would do in normal practice. It's supported by banks that we take that approach so that is what we're doing and please may I stress again that's one of the conditions that that most of the clubs have actually insisted we do and certainly all of the clubs support that position.

You've come to the aid of the Western Bulldogs in the form of a bank guarantee for three and a half million dollars, have you provided any direct financial assistance so far?

Well the three and a half million dollars is in fact the redirection order and the redirection is available to all clubs and as you said earlier in this interview seven clubs have taken that amount up all to varying degrees not all to three point five million dollars so that is the assistance we've provided additionally with the Kangaroos, I'm very sorry additionally with the Western Bulldogs as we've advised our clubs in November of 2001 we have loaned the Western Bulldogs nine hundred thousand dollars ah and that's the extent of the assistance I'm sorry to that club.

Just a very different situation that club finds itself in with the AFL and the Kangaroos.

Well not from our viewpoint. They are both on exactly the same path to getting financial assistance. One is further down the track than the other and I can only repeat that clubs are expected to have financial plans and business plans and to have those accessible to the AFL so we can form a view as to whether, as to the extent of the support that should be provided.

Just got two specific current questions on clubs, one is re the Bulldogs over the Chris Grant affair, in Chris Grant's words from yesterday, "they, the AFL, knew about my condition last July. I was allowed to play out the 2001 season participate in pre season training and play two practise matches this year". Why has the AFL been, appeared to be such a bully over this?

Ticky this has been a very long and difficult process and number one all we've wanted to do is to... have had as paramount is Chris Grant's health that has been satisfactorily resolved in the last week or two um...

But he was playing when you knew about it.

I'm sorry it's been resolved in the last week or two. He's now fully insured so that no other player, his own club or the AFL is is financially at risk...it has taken long, a long time, longer than Chris would have liked but I'm not sure Chris understands all the ramifications of insurance and legal liability. Chris had different lawyers than the Western Bulldogs and both were different from the AFL so it got caught up in the legal issues. It probably in retrospect I think all parties including Chris could have hastened this process but the important thing is the lad is playing, he's a wonderful player back on the track and I hope his presence back there does encourage the Bulldog members to actually get behind the club and support him and the club.

Would the AFL had handled the affair in the same way had the club President been Eddie McGuire or John Elliott?

Absolutely yes.

That's not what they think. Just one other very specific one and that is about the Kangaroos and the North Melbourne Social Club. The loan payable to the Kangaroos has ballooned from $1.6 to $2.2 million. How can that be recoverable?

Well again you should ask the Kangaroos that question. We do not manage the Kangaroo's Football Club so we'll look forward to seeing how that is dealt with in the financial budgets and in the business plan that is required to be gained by the AFL and to be reviewed by an independent person prior to any financial support being made available. So that's a question you should ask the Chairman and management of the Kangaroos.

Is it fair to say there is a bit of ongoing frustration at the AFL about North Melbourne?

No it it's not fair to say that. It is fair to say that it is frustrating that people will claim in a very public sense they need financial help and the process is so clear and the process is being supported by them in very detailed forums with all other clubs so we look forward to the process commencing and to being able to help because we want all ten teams in Melbourne in the national competition. We want a sixteen team national competition.

Several of the clubs told us that the AFL gave far too much away to the players in the last negotiation round and it's put struggling clubs under more pressure.

Look I think the AFL players did do well out of the last CBA negotiation but they got what we thought the industry could afford to pay, we'll be negotiating with the players shortly for the next CBA and I'm sure the player's attitude will be, it must be, we will negotiate a position that the industry can afford to pay. Now it's true at the present time we have a number of clubs operating with losses. It's also true to say that the AFL has never ever been in a stronger position in a financial and other sense in the hundred and fifty odd year history of football in this country.

That's the great irony though isn't it?

Well as I said earlier I said the clubs were struggling in 1980 with one million dollars worth of revenue, several struggle in 1990 and some are struggling in the early part of 2000 but the environment is there where a number of clubs are doing exceptionally well and better than they've ever done before, it is difficult and I think this is an important point, it is very difficult for some of the clubs who are locked in with small membership bases who may be inner city who haven't taken the opportunity that's been available to them over the last ten or fifteen years, it is hard yakka turning all that around but they're working hard to do that.

It was a real coup this five hundred million dollar TV rights deal. Looking at your cash flows over the next five years and looking out to say 2006 back of the envelope here but let's say these are my calculations, player payments rise to about $97 million, development doubling to $32 million, financial assistance at three, players association at five, that's close to $140 million a year. You're going to need all that one hundred million TV rights money aren't you by then?

Well I don't do the sums back of envelope, we know the sums and exactly what the numbers are. We will have a net borrowing of about 48 million at the end of this year and that trends downwards over the next five years so we can deal with that. It's important to note when looking at the AFL balance sheet that we have Waverley in there at our cost price and older independent valuations and there's about a fifty, sixty, seventy million dollar surplus or reserve you may like to call that, it's important to understand the AFL owns these offices in which we're now sitting and...

I don't think anyone's questioning the power of your balance sheet which is very strong.

Yep.

But it's more the revenues coming in versus the rising costs. Now you say you've done those proforma numbers out five years, do you think most of that one hundred million dollars a year by 2006 will be accounted for in terms of expenditure?

I think if you do the work and I'm sure you'll do you'll see that costs in football are tapering off. I mean there's been a huge escalation in costs in the last five years, in part but not solely driven by player payments. Clubs themselves have spent a lot of money in terms of the football operation sides of their business and I think clubs have needed to invest in support like financial resources, human resources, marketing resources, I think they've done that very very well but the rate of increase is tapering off. The AFL is budgeting for a three to four per cent increase in operating costs over the next four or five years and that includes any consideration of player payments.

Wayne you've stressed the importance that millions of dollars of AFL money can be available to clubs providing they provide a sound business plan going forward. If the club did not, was not able to provide a sound business plan maybe because they're in such a bad condition they don't have a plan for turnaround, how long will the AFL go on throwing good money after bad?

Well we've agreed with all sixteen clubs that we wouldn't just throw money, we've agreed that any support would be financially conditional and I just cannot contemplate that a club would even consider approaching the AFL without those basic parameters in place. I just don't think it will happen.

But if that business plan is put together and the answer is depressing, would the AFL still support that club?

Well we would do all we could to get a more viable business plan and then if the club still needed help beyond that which I've already outlined to you we're committed to going back to the sixteen clubs and we would ask the clubs what their view about that is. I think before that ever happened the Board's footy clubs would be forming a view about it. I mean we've got I think the management of footy clubs now is stronger than it's ever been before and strengthening all the time and Boards are cognisant of their financial and their fiduciary responsibilities so I think they'll be as anxious to make sure their business and the business of their members is viable as much as anybody else.

OK just going back to those TV rights and the revenues going out to sort of 2006, we've had a big downward revaluation of sporting contracts. No doubt it was a coup last year to get the deal when you did. Will you get that sort of money next time round do you think?

We don't know. We're hopeful that if our business grows, if Australian football grows particularly in Queensland, Northern Territory, New South Wales, particularly New South Wales and Queensland, if Australian Football can grow in the areas where about fifty five per cent of all Australians are going to be living in the next five years or so, we're hopeful that, confident that we will be able to be in a very very strong negotiating position in three, four, five years from now. That's certainly what we aim to do. We will support our broadcasters totally in the next several years and we expect to make strong progress in developing our game.

John Elliott says that the AFL is far too centralised, that revenue should be freed up and given to the clubs and that many decisions are better left to those who know more about football then administration.

Yeah, and I know John says that from time to time he is also a strong supporter of the sixteen team competition and to have sixteen teams you need a fair degree of equalisation so we equalise our major income streams, our broadcasting rights, our sponsorships, our final's monies are all equalised and divided up sixteen ways and that enables the Bulldogs and the Kangaroos and the Melbourne Footy Club and the St Kilda's to have a fair chance of competing with Carlton and Collingwood and Essendon and West Coast etc on the field so I, we're aware of John's views, they're not the views of the Commission.

If he got his way do you think that would put the weaker clubs in jeopardy?

Oh well it, no I don't think it would put them in jeopardy. It would put them out of business if you disequalised to a significant degree the income that's available to the poorer performing clubs the clubs can only go one way and that's totally out of existence. I mean you've already spent some time in talking about their losses, if the revenue comes down and you're committed to paying your players a certain amount you must go out of business so John's strategy is an absolute blueprint for non sixteen teams, non ten teams in Victoria and three or four of our traditional long, long term teams going out of the competition.

No pun intended on blueprint.

No, no no pun intended.

Wayne I've only got one conflict question for you and I know this is a hobby horse for the journalists but it's an important one and that is how can Geoff Brown be the lawyer for Eddie McGuire, the face of Channel Nine and also for the AFL during the TV rights deal?

I'm not aware that Geoff Brown is lawyer for um for Eddie McGuire.

He is.

Well if he is I don't see why that is, was it a conflict before Eddie became President or before Nine got the rights or is it only a conflict since Eddie became President of the Collingwood Football Club and that Channel Nine are, have got part of our broadcasting rights?

I think the potential conflict lies with Eddie McGuire being the face of Channel Nine and that it was a very competitive situation for those TV rights between Seven on the one hand and Nine and Foxtel on the other.

Well I think if there is a concern about conflicts of interest with Eddie and Channel Nine, that's an issue for Channel Nine and for Eddie.

And for you.

Ah well, I'm not sure it is for for us because Eddie has made an enormous difference to the Collingwood Football Club, he's passionate, he's very energetic works hard for Australian Football and harder just as hard for the Collingwood Footy Club. I'm not sure where the AFL is at threat. Whenever there have been issues that of any potential conflict he is, absolutely talked about it in front of people, occasionally left the room so we can deal with that and I'm sure Eddie's dealing with it and I'm not sure who's not coping with that.

I suppose Channel Seven.

Oh well I don't know whether they are or not...I guess the way to solve that is to procure the rights in three or four or five years time.

Can we talk about the real fight at the AFL which is not on the field but against the other Codes?

Well...it's a watershed time for Australian sport at the present and I hope I get enough time to make this comment, we've obviously got competitive threats from other Codes and let me just say I think that the indigenous nature of our game will hold us in very very good stead against round ball competitions or anything else. I just think the fact that we are an invented Australian game is going to help enormously as this competition for other games grows but the real threat I think all sporting administrators see is other forms of entertainment and it's kids and their PCs and its films and movies and everything else and the other real threat today is just all Australian sport, particularly at grassroots levels out in the country and in the suburbs is really really under threat by this public liability insurance issue that people whether it be cricket or rugby league or union, soccer, Australian football, horse riding, whatever, there is a massive concern and an increasing exodus from volunteer officials that just must be tackled on a federal basis and we must stop setting up task forces within states and politicians you know playing lip service to this. It must be resolved and I'm hopeful through the Australian Sports Commission that they will be able to make some progress on behalf of all sport in Australia....I think that's a major major threat to sport in Australia.

Does it surprise you that at Scots only forty more boys want to play AFL than soccer?

I didn't know that number, I would have thought that soccer's making inroads to a certain level and then lads go off and play Australian Football, of course in some states where we're strong soccer and rugby's making inroads… we're making inroads into other areas with Oz Kick programmes. We've got one hundred thousand kids growing expedientially in New South Wales, Brisbane and Sydney and Queensland playing Australian Football so you lose market share in your heartlands, you pick it up in the growth areas.

Who are the most influential people in this game?

Non-players?

Mm.

I would have thought that the most influential people are within clubs, the Presidents and the CEOs within the AFL whoever the personalities are or the individuals are, the Chairman and the CEO and within all clubs and within all bodies there are the individuals that have got particular areas of strength or interest or time that play a role so I can't answer any more specifically than that.

What about Graham Samuel or Eddie, Eddie McGuire says he's the deal maker, John Elliot puts him at the top of the list in the power stakes.

Oh well Graham, you know Graham is an incredibly talented enormously hardworking person for Australian Football and he was an absolute catalyst in some of the bigger financial arrangements we've made, was a key part of our committee which is under the Chairmanship of Ron Evans, for our broadcasting rights.

Why wont you let Four Corners speak to Graham Samuel?

I don't know that we haven't let Four Corners speak to Graham Samuel...

Well we've asked.

Well I, we don't think it's appropriate that one or two directors of any organisation ah be, you you can speak to all of them.

But he's instrumental isn't he in these big deals?

He's instrumental in those deals but Colin Carter arguably for example who's put together as Chairman as the development report that is going to have an enormous impact on Australian Football if and when it's recommendations are adopted. Bill Kelty has had an influence on our negotiations with our players. Some, all Commissioners have particular areas of strength. That's why it's a very strong Commission because it is independent and they all do have different skills.

But is it also because Graham Samuel has rather Darwinian views about the club? Survival of the fittest?

Rather what you say?

Darwinian views about the clubs survival of the fittest.

Graham like all of our Commissioners was a key part of the financial strategies that we spent quite some time talking about so he's absolutely supportive of the position I've spent some time outlining to you.

And is it true that nothing important gets through the AFL with a sign off from Graham Samuel?

I think we've covered this subject.

OK. Does Footy really matter like it use to, Wayne?

I think you'd have to ask the six or seven million people that go to our games, the six or seven million people that watch on television, the forty eight thousand volunteers, I think you'd need to ask them I mean in the last five or six years I've been really really close to it at an Australian level and AFL level, elite people and through trying to grow the Code. I see no softening of the passion but we did touch on other forms of entertainment and we Australians are increasingly time poor and I'd love to talk a little bit more about all this, we've run out of time I guess but that's why through this Carter development report we may have to work out how at the non elite level what people can play football and not take it quite so long, how we get boys and girls playing how we can play on smaller grounds there's a massive number of issues that we have to address in Australian Football but …

Do you have to fight the TV rights situation now? The pressure to go to bigger grounds and all that sort of stuff, has that and playing on Saturday afternoons, I mean does that present you with quite a challenge in terms of the sort of things you were talking about?

No the ones I was just talking about are more development issues but it is true that when companies pay a lot of money for broadcasting rights they naturally want to have an influence on what you do I don't think anyone misunderstands the AFL absolutely controls our fixture and but it is true that a broadcaster comes to us and says would you please give consideration to that we'll try and do that because a broadcaster's doing what they think is in the best interests of the viewers at home so that's good for footy but we must make sure it doesn't intrude into the game or detract from people actually want to go to the game because that's our first absolute commitment to maximise the attendances and having maximised the attendances we want to maximise the audiences now that broadcasters have interests in both of those.

Yeah you're quite protective aren't you about live against the gate in Victoria for instance?

Yeah we are but we are because we think free to air live on on a number of our games would impact on attendances and it would impact on people going to country footy and suburban footy but the tide is rolling in on all of that and as I said earlier, when we've got so little time to spend, Australians increasingly want to go to their sport or watch their sport when they want to watch it so we have to be reactive to that.

And are you going to be around for a long time as Chief Executive?

I don't know how long I'll be around. I've been five or six years now. I'm enjoying it very much. I've got lots of interesting things to do so…

No truths to the rumour you are retiring at the end of this year?

I will be retiring some time now whether it's tomorrow, next week, next year, only time will tell.